IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION UNIFIED MESSAGING SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., et al, Defendants.

§ § § § § CASE NO. 6:11cv120 § PATENT CASE § § § § § §

UNIFIED MESSAGING SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., et al, Defendants.

§ § § § § CASE NO. 6:11cv464 § PATENT CASE § § § § § §

ORDER

After reviewing the parties’ Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (see

Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., et. al., 6:11cv120, Docket No. 358; Unified

Messaging Solutions LLC v. Google, Inc. et. al., 611cv464, Docket No. 219), the Court ordered

the parties to meet and confer to (1) narrow the number of asserted claims to a reasonable

number; (2) narrow the number of disputed claims terms to a reasonable number; (3) narrow the

number of prior art references per asserted claim to a reasonable number; and (4) discuss

Case 6:11-cv-00120-LED Document 388 Filed 07/12/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 3169

proposals regarding how to narrow the case. Docket No. 372. The parties’ have filed a joint

notice to the Court containing competing proposals regarding narrowing of these cases. Unified

Messaging Solutions, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., et. al., 6:11cv120, Docket No. 377; Unified

Messaging Solutions LLC v. Google, Inc. et. al., 611cv464, Docket No. 249.

Plaintiff has agreed to reduce the number of asserted claims from approximately 52

(independent and dependent) to 35 claims prior to the Markman hearing, and has agreed to

further decrease the number of asserted claims to 15 at the time of its expert report on

infringement. Defendants have agreed to “defer” the number of “claim construction issues” at

this time from 27 to 16, which still implicates over 40 terms/phrases to be construed by the

Court, and Defendants have further agreed to reduce the total number of prior references to 30

within 50 days after the Markman Order is issued.

After consideration of the parties’ proposals, the Court remains concerned that the large

number of claims and claim terms in these cases are unmanageable—and will serve only to

inflate costs for both sides. The Court routinely handles complex patent cases involving multiple

patents and parties and inevitably asserted claims and prior art references are abandoned as the

case proceeds to trial. Narrowing the case at an earlier stage will serve to reduce the overall

costs of the litigation by eliminating needless discovery regarding issues that will likely be

dropped prior to trial, and allow the Court to dedicate its resources to the truly dispositive and

meritorious issues.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to reduce the number of asserted claims to a

maximum of 20 and further ORDERS Defendant to reduce its invalidity contentions to include

no more than 4 distinct bases of invalidity for each asserted claim. The parties are further

ORDERED to meet and confer to make a meaningful attempt to reduce the number of claim

Case 6:11-cv-00120-LED Document 388 Filed 07/12/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 3170

terms to be construed. The parties shall file a notice with the Court regarding the status of

disputed claims, disputed claim terms, and the number of prior art references per asserted claim

by July 16, 2012. Should the parties fail to reduce the number of asserted claims, prior art

references, and claim terms to be construed, the parties shall provide good faith and specific

reasons, on a claim-by-claim basis, why a particular claim or prior art reference must remain in

the case. If necessary, such good faith reasons may be submitted in camera.

__________________________________LEONARD DAVISUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of July, 2012.

Case 6:11-cv-00120-LED Document 388 Filed 07/12/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 3171